Wikidata:Property proposal/admin level

OSM admin level edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Not done

Description	level of administrative layer in OSM
Data type	String
Domain	subclass of administrative units or single instance that constitutes the level (notably for level 2)
Allowed values	2-11 (in theory 1-12). Generally, there would be one item with a specific level for each country, unless two (or more) different types of administrative units without a commons class get the same level
Allowed units	none
Example	autonomous community of Spain (Q10742) → 4 (don't use 4 on every autonomous community) county of the United States (Q47168) → 6 (don't use 6 on every county) Poland (Q36) → 2 osiedla → 12
Source	http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level

Motivation

Should help improve integration with OSM. I would be glad to get some feedback from OSM before this is created.
--- Jura 08:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment datatype should be integer, but string is probably easier to convert than "quantity".
--- Jura 08:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the quantity datatype is the best choice because OSM values are always strings. While the existing documented values can be represented as integers, there are no restrictions on the values (as you can see from the existing values for the admin_level key) and while it's probably rather unlikely, there is nothing to stop OSM introducing levels which can't be represented using the quantity datatype in the future. - Nikki (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nikki: Ok. I changed it to string.
    --- Jura 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is unnecessary. Either use "higher"/"lower", as proposed elsewhere, or series ordinal (P1545), qualified with an item for, e.g. "hierarchy of places in USA". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To help people check if this could work, would you do two of the samples from the proposal with your alternate tentative suggestion?
  --- Jura 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you suggest I "do" a sample, using a proposed property? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Add Sandbox-String (P370) to a couple of items and use query.wikidata.org ?
      --- Jura 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess Pigsonthewing suggest something like :
        ⟨ autonomous community of Spain (Q10742)    ⟩ series ordinal (P1545) ⟨ 4 ⟩
        applies to part (P518) ⟨ OpenStreetMap (Q936)    ⟩
        described at URL (P973) ⟨ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level ⟩
        . Indeed I think it's more than enough. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, we can just guess, but we don't really know if it works. So you'd drop the "qualifier only"-constraint on P1545? Not really convincing.
        --- Jura 13:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The guessing was related to Andy suggestion not to the practicability/workability. But I think my suggestion works quit well, can you give a counter-example (even just a basic example first). Did you look at the state of the documentation (in general) and "qualifier only"-constraint (in particular) on P1545? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. Why do you ask that? Why do you want to change it?
        --- Jura 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        So you did see that it as inconsistent, contradictory (the examples given violating the only constraints) and nearly inexistent (only one constraint, seriously...). I don't *want* to change it but it's *needed* as impossible rules could not be followed. Anyway, that's a minor point, other (and maybe better) properties could probably be used and you didn't point anything wrong in the structure I proposed. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't quite see how your thing could work out, but if the two of you think it works for you, you probably want to go ahead with it. Supposedly you could list your constraint violations as exceptions .. In case the outcome would work for me as well, I'd withdraw this proposal.
        --- Jura 21:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how would it help to improve integration with OSM? Isn't the documentation page you gave on the wikiOSM more than enough? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Make it possible to identify the layers and query them on Wikidata? Maybe overpass could do that, but somehow I doubt that.
  --- Jura 13:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I fail to see what you want and why you want it. What are you calling layer here? (I can only assume you're not talking about Key:layer). If you can ask a clear question, I can try to translate it in the overpass language. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Determine the OSM admin level for a given item.
    --- Jura 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously, but could you give some details or a concrete example. By the way, on your 4 examples, the third seems a bit off (at least, Poland (Q36) is not an administrative level/layer/whatever) and what don't you gave an item for the fourth (osiedle (Q2277441) I imagine but maybe there is a trick or a trap). Cdlt VIGNERON (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1, Nikki, Pigsonthewing, VIGNERON: given lack of expressed support and no activity for over 3 months, I'm marking this as Not done. If this is to be reactivated I suggest starting a new proposal and linking to this one. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]